Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)

Getting this article beyond start class

The article does not currently have sources that establish WP:BIO. Not that this is in question, but it's important even if WP:BLP didn't apply.

The article is basically an advertisement for him and his website. Third party sources need be found and used as the guiding sources for the article. Again, WP:BLP applies as well.

The references need to be expanded with publication dates, authors, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. I'm perplexed about your tags. I've read and reread the article and I can't work out what you mean:

— written like an advertisement

— promotional content

— inappropriate external links

— sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral

I haven't contributed to the article myself and I can't commit to being able to help you with whatever exactly is wrong with it (depending on what it is), but can you please be more specific. Otherwise, it's not possible for the rest of us to appreciate your qualms.

Moonsell (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your confusion. These are straightforward problems verified by simply scanning the article and its references. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way. My difficulty understanding is real. I've just asked you to say what you mean. Moonsell (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made three statements on what needs to be done, linking policies/guidelines with each. Please identify which you don't understand, and try to explain your understanding of how the policies/guidelines are currently being met (if you believe they are). --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this article and I can't understand the tags. Please, is there anyone else who can shed light on this? Moonsell (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me try one more time.

Of the three statements I made, the first is: The article does not currently have sources that establish WP:BIO. Does my statement need clarification? If so, indicate so and how. Have you looked at WP:BIO? If you disagree with my statement, say so, and identify the specific sources that I am overlooking that indeed establish WP:BIO. If none exist, find some. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of advertisement and sources too close tags

Dear Ronz, Dear Moonsell,

I see you were reaching no agreement. I think I can see the problems Ronz was talking about and have modified the article accordingly. I am quite familiar with Berzin's work since I follow it for many years. I added some references to better cement the notability aspect (in the Tibetan Buddhist and academic religious study worlds) using third-party sources of biography. Also, I added third-party references about his life work in Mongolia and Kalmykia. I had to use a reference in Russian from a friend since no reference was available in English. I think the Reviews section I added better shows the appreciation many others have for his work. Also, the new Bibliography section contains selection of the non-website traditionally published material I know from him. For sure this needs to be expanded by others. I also think that this article shouldn't be an advertisement for Berzin's website. It should be a reference about him as an academic (who happens to publish almost all his work for free on his website since 15 years or so). I believe we can now remove both tags. What do you think? Jorgenumata (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have addressed BIO directly, and I'm not going to look through all the new sources and reviews you added to see if there may be something in there that might.

I think the easiest way would be to start by identifying the specific sources here on this page. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, Thanks for your editorial work. First of all, if I understand you correctly you now agree to remove the tag "advertisement" since this article has lost the character of just being an advertisement for Berzin's website.

As for the second concern on BIO, I have annotated the specific sources below and how they relate to each item on the biography. I trust you will be satisfied that quality sources were used, none of which were posted by Berzin himself:

• Birth in Paterson N.J, Harvard PhD, Age, part-time translator of the Dalai Lama (source )
• Working with translators in many languages (source )
• Advised with the revival of Buddhism in Mongolia (sources )
• Advised with the revival of Buddhism in Kalmykia (source )
• Participated in the Buddhist-Islamic Dialogue (sources )
• Berzin Archives website included in the Boolean Electronic Archives and Manuscripts collection of the University of Oxford (source )
• On the Board of Advisors of Tibethaus Deutschland (source )
• One the Board of Advisors of the International Center for Buddhist-Muslim Understanding (source )
• Gives explanatory talks at Kalachakra initiations given by the Dalai Lama (sources )

Jorgenumata (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm focusing on BIO, because it will help or at least impact everything else in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that verification is being confused with the notability of a person. The first source doesn't address BIO at all. The second is weak because of the short treatment, lack of independence, and promotional nature of the publication.

The following two interviews are weak - I don't have access to them but in general interviews have little independent coverage of the subject, what there may be is often provided by the subject of the interview or is heavily weighed to grabbing the attention of the potential reader.

The fifth is weak, being a press release.

The sixth is weak, being another interview.

The seventh fails BIO, as it's not independent.

The eighth fails BIO because it says nothing about Berzin other than identifying him as the author of an article quoted in the source.

The ninth fails BIO, and very weakly demonstrates notability for his archives.

The rest fail BIO because they say nothing about Berzin specifically.

This is harder than I'd hoped. I think we meet WP:AUTHOR taking these all together. I find it hard to believe that there's no in-depth coverage about him and his archives. The archives have some notability of their own, though not separate from him that I see, so they probably deserve a bit more weight in the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is long, I know. If you don't have time, skip it, but just one thing: take the tags down in the meantime.

Please can we continue this discussion calmly. I think you deal with a wide range of stuff on WP, Ronz and that gives you some common denominator expectations. This article is about a Buddhist scholar and this niche of WP tends to be particularly consensus driven. Once in a while someone combative does crash in on an article. We Buddhists tend to just get frightened away. If WP is lucky, one or two of us might come back in time.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SOURCES

On your user page you've got:

"Editors working incredibly hard to defend their personal opinions, rather than finding, evaluating, and incorporating more and better sources. It's the focus on sourcing that resolves these disputes."

This is true to an extent, but I have a qualification: Sources are not a be all and end all. For a start, they're not for legalities. For example, they do get thrown in as a pretext for adding nonsense to an article. Usually this happens when an editor has misunderstood the source or applied it to a context where it doesn't fit, but other editors don't have access to it. Then the first editor is too busy to reproduce the words in a discussion (all of them including context) and there's a communication breakdown.

Editors can fall in love with their contributions while they battle with whose source is bigger. I even had an experience some years ago where one in good faith wrote something smelly but with a reputable source attached. He just couldn't consider that there could be something wrong. In that case I actually got a reply by email from the writer of the book that what he meant was the opposite of what we were trying to say on WP.

PUTTING SOURCES IN THEIR PLACE

More crucially for us is the other side of the coin, where sources are missing. That's not a license for rubbishing good things.

This is my favourite part of WP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

Most stuff on WP is not contentious and doesn't need sources. A lot of editors don't get that. In fact, there is a trap of getting carried away and making sourcing a fetish. To put citations on stuff that's common knowledge and part of scholarly consensus looks plain silly to a reader.

SOURCES IN WP:BIO

That's why in WP:BIO, which is only about why someone can be notable enough to deserve an article on them and nothing else, it says:

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." To scholars of Buddhism Berzin's lifetime of contributions are common knowledge. As if that wasn't enough, though, WP:BIO goes on with more:

"Academics: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Even though Jorgenumata has gone out of his way to give you secondary sources on Berzin, this is a situation where wider knowledge of Buddhism could give more subtlety and humility to your editing. Students of Buddhism (and Tibetan Buddhism in particular) don't need secondary sources to know about Berzin's importance to our understanding of it.

TAKING YOU AS HAVING GOOD FAITH

You say on your user page: "I'm trying to find better ways of dealing with Tendentious editing, Disruptive editing, and the all-too-common bullying within Wikipedia… I'm looking for some preventative measures. First and foremost in my mind is getting editors to be more respectful of each other by being more respectful of the numerous policies and guidelines related to civility".

I too have had interactions with two editors that pushed me over the edge with glee at one stage. The worst thing was how one editor had the time to throw her weight around over a year and a half but no inclination to take responsibility for what she was doing or even acknowledge my talk about it. Yet it turned out, she had absolutely no insight into what she was doing.

Please stop and think. You've taken the trouble to put confronting tags on the Berzin article. I tried to talk about big problems with them. You ignored, changing the topic to WP:BIO, which, as I said, is just about criteria why someone is notable enough to deserve an article on them at all. That tells me, "Hands off the tags, no questions asked. I have the power to nuke the whole article if I feel like it."

Then look over the way you've first talked about WP:BIO. In tone it comes across as patronising and feels like bullying.

You've ignored what I raised at the start but look at how demanding you've been of us. Initially you didn't had the time to even glance at the work Jorgenumata has done to satisfy you. Now you tick him off on everything and don't give him an inch.

You've been bold enough with your tags but now you've demanded talk from us in future before contributing. Jorgenumata's new contributions are all there neatly laid out already in the article's page history.

And how curt and abrasive your responses to him! What could he or any of us expect from you in the piecemeal discussions you've demanded now? You yourself just don't have time in any case.

So, talk about sources and guidelines all you like. I agree, although I've seen legal games and warring over them too. But collaboration has to start with having the time for each other and then being prepared to look honestly at what we ourselves are doing.

WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU

I'd like to come back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources:

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations..."

What we need sources for is things that are *"challenged or likely to be challenged"*. Please consider that. What actual bits are you challenging in this article with your tags. And… *why*?

WHY IT MATTERS

I've never contributed to this article but I think the others have done a pretty good job. I know a bit about the field of study and the tags aren't cute. To people like me who come across them and then check out the context they trivialise WP. This is the wrong place for them.

They don't belong here but the thing that keeps coming through is that you're too busy to deal with this. The professional and respectful thing to do is take them down while you have no consensus and no time for it.

That won't stop you from discussing more as much as you like. We won't go away. Read up on Tibetan Buddhism. Contribute constructively. It really is a matter of respect.

WP:BIO has nothing to do with your tags. It's a red herring and it isn't your real problem. At least take the time to:

1) read this discussion from the beginning;

2) say specifically what's wrong.

Last of all, is there any one of us who agrees with the tags and does have time to elaborate?

EPILOGUE

It's not about you, Ronz. It's the tags and what you do with them. Please don't just spin off a dismissive response. Like others here I take care with what I write, including in discussions. Honour that by sleeping on it for a few days.

Moonsell (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content and Wikipedia's policies.

As there's no tag about notability, and that's all that has been addressed so far, asking for their removal is premature. The tags are their to identify problems and to attract others to assist in addressing them.

If you look to the last sentence of my response you'll see that I believe that we've made progress. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're starting to talk about content, not just legalisms. As for policies, after your display so far with WP:BIO, I think you need to show us first that you can cope with them. Also, "please focus on content". I've urged you to do that with the policy I emphasised twice and you haven't even noticed it.

WP:BIO

— Right at the beginning I alerted you privately on your talk page to big problems with your tags. You had done something hasty and with goodwill I was nudging you to reconsider early rather than digging yourself in.

— You raised WP:BIO for the first time (in the outrageous way I've said) later that day in response to me about the tags, not on your talk page but on this one, as you preferred. You were insisting on making a case out of this and you'd decided the tactic was going to be heavy-handed.

— From the start I had already allowed for you not knowing the material you were tampering with and offered you as much personal consideration as a newbie as I could. I'd given you a heads up that the guy you were dealing with was someone reputable and impeccable.

— From that time on you've banged on about nothing else except WP:BIO, taking a superior stance to us like a kindergarten teacher with a red pencil in her hand.

— You sent us on a wild goose chase with WP:BIO. With your editing experience you should have known what it said about you demanding sources like that over someone like Berzin. You wasted Jorgenumata's time and it isn't just your own time that matters.

— You want to focus on WP's policies but can't even understand WP:BIO yourself. You haven't commented on the other policy I emphasised. Maybe that's Greek too.

— You can't make sense of all this without a tag on notability (an extra one!), like a cop who's holding someone he doesn't like the look of, but groping for a technical label to put on it. What kind of a buzz can someone get from throwing round tags anyway?

THE TAGS

— At the start, when I tried to alert you to what Berzin meant to scholars of Buddhism, I wasn't even talking about WP:BIO. You brought it up. I'd never even considered it as a question. I was talking about those particular tags on a good article about a person like that and how the tags were trashing it. I thought at best they might come from some kid who had found new toys. This is the stuff that makes academia disdain WP. But I do also have first-hand experience of the tea party vigilantes who've been making havoc on WP the last few years. They make a show of tag versatility and quibbling over sources to evade accountability. Constructive volunteers get ward off them doing what they feel like with their wrecking ball on good content. You could have been one of them. Either way, I was talking about the tags, not WP:BIO.

— You can't say which actual parts of the article you dislike and what things about each of them make you uncomfortable. Now I'm starting to wonder if you know yourself. The tags are just your off the cuff impressions. Maybe you were in a bad mood that day and didn't like the picture of Berzin's face. Maybe you think there's no place for religion on WP, let alone voodoo esoteric stuff. Maybe you carry a bag of tags and pseudo-legalities round with you on this site, trawling it like a graffiti artist wanting to use up his paint.

— It's been six weeks now since I politely and considerately challenged those tags but you've just kept dodging the issue.

— You've kept the tags there all that time. That's not just inflammatory. It's not just arrogant. It's infantile in a professional sense on a platform like this with a sincere discussion ongoing.

— The tags are a contribution, even if a negative one, even if not constructive. You still need to take responsibility for them as your edits.

— At the start I detailed the exact ways they stigmatise the article. You didn't notice what I wrote. It's you who won't be informative. It's not enough to wave a hand around waftily. "You ought to know what I mean" isn't good enough. You've tagged the whole article. You can't lay that stuff on us and then not spell out each part that has issues and what exactly each of them are. I've been talking about content all along and you've been evading it.

Please do what I've asked for. Start by rereading this discussion from the beginning and actually taking the time to think about it.

Then look at the points I first raised. They are the criticisms the tags are making. You chose those particular tags.

Show us what each criticism has to do with each bit you don't like. (Content, not wishy washy feelings). The tags apply to the whole article so show which bits deserve each criticism and why (content).

Like I said, please give it at least a few days and show that you've taken the time to think before replying.

Moonsell (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the hurtful words I used above, Ronz. I'm feeling at my wit's end. But emotion is taking over how I try to get understood. I need to back off for a while. Please give me scope to come back to it more harmoniously.

Moonsell (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

… and thank you for not taking advantage of my shameful show of personal weakness here.

Moonsell (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm following my standard, policy-based approach to addressing such articles.

As part of my approach, I try to find common ground with the other editors involved. A large part of that common ground must be based upon understanding and working from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Because of this, I regularly point out specific policies and guidelines, and focus on those that I think are most important, especially if I'm uncertain that they're understood or their relevance isn't clear.

As far as articles go, my first area of focus is to check the notability of the topic. Because it wasn't clear, I've spent some time focusing on it. While I think we're at a point where we can move on from it, having better sources would make it clearer and would make the rest of the work much easier. While the notability guideline doesn't establish content, the type of sources it requires are extremely helpful, even necessary, for a good article.

This takes me to my next area of focus: looking at the sourcing in detail. Independent sources are better than non-independent ones, all else equal. Secondary sources are better than primary ones, all else equal. Sources based upon strong research and that put the topic in a historical context are some of the best sources we can hope for.

Looking over the sources, too many are primary, too many are not independent. I've already addressed them all quickly. We can work from there.

If editors would like to take a different approach, WP:DR covers the many options we have.--Ronz (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Looking over the article vs online treatments, I'm concerned there may be copyright violations and plagiarism. Those will have to be resolved first. WP:CP is where to go next. I'd like to take some time to collect concrete evidence first. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The initial article creation is just a copy of [1]. Much of that content remains, and none of it is verified by berzinarchives.com nor by a more current biography from studybuddhism.com. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the advertisement and sources too close tags should not be removed. I appreciate Jorgenumata´s efforts to provide inline sources but these sources are rather poor, especially in a WP:BLP. Ronz has shown a lot of good will when he concluded that "we meet WP:AUTHOR taking these all together." I am not sure that this article would survive Wikipedia:AfD.

The article needs an additional copyvio tag. Jorgenumata, please consider to save a copy of the article (not in your userspace because it is a copyvio). I assume it might be deleted as a copright violation. JimRenge (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tagged, and I've made a backup of the article. Sorry for the confusion. I don't recall the copyvio template removing the content, the last time I used it. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

In support of maintaining and improving this valuable article

I am somewhat astonished to find this article basically suspended and even nominated for deletion. Forgive me, as a an editor with little experience and only one year's track record, but I have personal knowledge of the subject and feel that deletion of this article in its entirety would be tantamount to vandalism. Berzin has a ginormous track record with 17 published books and endless articles, literally hundreds or even thousands of them; his compilation of Buddhist teachings and lore is probably the best and also the largest in existence on the internet - plus most of the invaluable information in it has been translated and published in no less that 21 languages.

To contend that he and his phenomenal achievements are not notable and therefore not worthy of a Wikipedia article would appear to be a travesty of justice. Agreed, it needs a re-write, with all the sources tied up to all the bits of information to be stated, but this can please be done in a positive, instructive and helpful way, rather than talking about deletion, picking holes in it, finding endless fault in it and condemning it for this that and the other as if it is some sort of dubious attempt to get Berzin's name in Wikipedia without justification.

I have to state my potential conflicts of interest here. I have known Berzin personally since 1975. The Tibetan master for whom he interpreted for 9 years, the late Serkong Rinpoche, was a teacher of the Dalai Lama as well as of myself. I have also worked to raise funds for the Berzin Archives to finance the translation of hundreds of his freely-available website articles on Buddhism and its history into Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Turkish and Indonesian, thus paving the way for greater understanding of Buddhism throughout the Muslim world, of which I also know a little myself.

In closing as a rookie WP editor I have been lucky to have been helped along by various senior editors who have mentored and coached me in the ways of WP editing in an extremely kind and helpful manner. I hope the same standards of positive and helpful behaviour will enable this article to be improved as it deserves to be without making any further unnecessary and if I may say so, inappropriate threats. Moreover, the text that has been removed should be reinstated as soon as possible and instead of all these endless reams of argument and criticism some good energy might be put into actually improving the existing information which is what I understood WP was all about. Thank you for your kind consideration of my intervention which I hope will be taken in a positive way. I have come to love WP and its ethic. Let that not get tarnished over time. MacPraughan (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The text was a clear copyright violation. There are instructions on how to rewrite the article within the copyvio notice. I highly recommend taking the time to find new and better sources (sources with more depth of inforation about him, independent sources clearly demonstrating his notability, and sources verifying some the many things that editors assert here on this talk page), so we can get out of the shadow the past problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr or Ms Ronz, thank you for your clarification that the text is a clear copyright violation. Can you please specify exactly which part of the text you are talking about and also indicate the exact place the text has been stolen from, as I would just like to check out that what you are alleging is right. I am on a learning curve with how to deal with such an awful condemnation in practice. It sounds truly terrible that anyone acting in good faith could unknowingly or otherwise commit such a reprehensible offence as you describe when giving facts in good faith about a person who has devoted his life to such a wonderful purpose as Dr Berzin has done! Thanks very much and sorry for the bother, it would be very helpful of you to do the necessary. MacPraughan (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The copyright problems were identified above [2]. To repeat, the original version of this article was a simple copy of the biography on Berzin's website at the time. The editor that did so, Rudyh01 (talk · contribs) has a history of such editing, as well as direct conflict of interest problems.

The solution is to rewrite the article. I think our focus should be there. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I see what you mean. I have looked at the "Short Biography" of Berzin on his website and it is full of lots of similar information to what was written here. But isn't that normal? A person's biography does not change according to where it has been posted. Also it is not copied and pasted, it is completely different in every sentence and sequence. If it had been copied and pasted en bloc then you might have a point. As it is, it is completely differently written. True, the individual facts stated in each version correspond, as one fully expects in a biography, but it has been all put in the mixer and re-written. So it seems to me it has been completely re-written already. I cannot understand why you want to do it all over again.

Also all the facts stated can indeed be found in all the various independent verifiable reliable sources that have been listed in the citations section - I have looked at them.

I am confused by your contradictory statements about reliability and biography, your position appears to change with each comment that is made. As such I do not understand why you are campaigning against this article. Why is it so important to you? What is the big deal and what is your personal interest in attacking the good doctor and belittling his work, much valued and admired in all the interfaith world as a uniquely wonderful resource? Please let me know the real problem because as I see it, and I tend to agree with Moonsell, you appear to be, let us say, acting somewhat unreasonably in demanding in such a haughty and superior manner the deletion of this excellent article and demeaning Dr Berzin's life and work in the way that you have. It is as if you hold a deep professional grudge against him.

Do you not have something more creative and constructive to get on with? I hope it does not end in a dispute resolution process but if you demand the article to be re-written, I have a simple suggestion to make, why don't you just go ahead and show us how to do it? You have already invested a huge amount of your valuable time and effort attacking the article and having it provisionally deleted with all ths disputacious stuff, now to be only re-written, with all your reams and reams of carefully-composed accusations and criticism and explanations and justifications of your attack; if you are acting in good faith why don't you just put a bit of your valuable time and energy into improving it in the way you suggest? I am sure you could do a great job and it would be a good lesson for me, how you do it, since as a relative beginner I need to have people show me how things are properly done and due to my conflict of interest I do not feel I should be the one to re-write it myself.

How about it? Please! Let's be a bit more positive here. I am sure, assuming that you are sincere, that you can re-write this article all beautifully in a few minutes with all the references in place and it would be an object lesson for all concerned. Please show us how to do it. You are clearly a skilled editor and I appreciate that very much indeed. Thanks for your forbearance and please don't mind my somewhat cheeky remarks and asides, ribbing you mildly for the contentious way you have been coming on here in the course of all your statements and negative arguments above! Admit it, objectively speaking, what you have been writing here does look a bit OTT, considering the self-evident worthiness of the subject of your unrelenting attacks. MacPraughan (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

MacPraughan, the first version of this article was copypasted by Rudyh01, according to his wp user page the webmaster of the Berzin Archives, from Alexander Berzins self-published autobiography on the Berzin Archives. The corrrespondence between these texts is 99.6% [3]. The last version of the article is also a suspected copyright violation ([4] 80.4%). Wikipedia:Autobiography describes the problems associated with autobiographies in Wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, JimRenge, so even though that entire original text was written by the same person who posted it here, and even though the original publication of the text was deleted some 5 years ago, you consider it "plagiarism" and "copyright violation". It is news to me that someone can plagiarise his own work, and violate his own copyright! This is beginning to sound more and more like a witchhunt. I see that RONZ has not responded to any of my questions.

And why does nobody want to re-write the article and improve it, only to disparage and delete it? The entire text of the article has been deleted, after some sleuth has gone back five years on the Berzin Archives archive to discover the same text that appeared here, which in fact constitutes an accurate biography supported by independent reliable sources.

Right, I now see the picture. I shall quickly write a brief biography of Dr Berzin myself, drawn from the list of cited sources, all in my own words, and post it on the article. Will that solve the problem? Then you can all go back to carrying out some more positive activities. I declare my conflict of interest that I am a former colleague of Dr Berzin as we have both worked, many years ago, for the Office of the Dalai Lama in different capacities; he as an interpreter, me as a driver. I trust this does not disqualify me or make me a plagiarist, mole, agent provocateur or other sinister intervener in your campaign to put Dr Berzin's article down.

Do I have to involve an administrator to remove this pernicious threatening notice one of you has put in place of the so-called "plagiarised" text? What's the procedure, JimRenge? I do appreciate your pointing out what is really going on here.MacPraughan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

MacPraughan, the "Investigation of potential copyright issue" tag explains the procedure as well as options to resolve the problem. JimRenge (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

JimRenge, that is extremely useful, thank you so much for this helpful advice. I have followed it up, and my understanding is that (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online) if Dr Berzin posts the following text in small print at the foot of his current website biography page, the "blatant copyright violation" alleged by Ronz will forthwith cease to exist:

"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

I am emailing Dr Berzin now to explain and request that he arranges with his website manager to have this done immediately. There should be no problem. Thanks again, it is great to have such an extremely easy solution to this problem indicated. Once it is done the entire deletion threat notice can be lifted and the original text reinstated, right? How to get that done? Of course, the article can then be improved as necessary and i see that Ronz has agreed to help with that. This is much appreciated. MacPraughan (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC) P.S. what do you think are the 'relevant policies' to read, as referred to by Ronz below?

Dear Ronz, in your edit of this article of 16:56, 3 July 2016, you summarily deleted the entire list of all Dr Berzin's many publications (his authored books, all his articles published in academic journals, etc) from his article. Can you explain in simple words why, please? On the articles about other notable authors and scholars, I have seen that to list the subject's authored books and so forth seems to be fully normal and acceptable practice and apparently de riguer. Otherwise, how are readers to know about the accomplishments and achievements which make them all so notable?

Perhaps listing Berzin's publications is considered in his case to be a form of ... advertising? Plagiarism, being copied from booksellers' lists? Copyright volation? Self-promotion? Or is it over-zealous editing perhaps by someone who does not appreciate Buddhist publications? No, heaven forbid! I am at a loss.

Since Ronz is apparently not responding to my questions, perhaps JimRenge might be able to kindly intervene and enlighten me as to RONZ's rationale (assuming that he has one), since in his edit summary he has noted: "(→‎Publications: removed per WP:NOT and WP:NPOV - maybe editors can come up with encyclopedic inclusion criteria instead)", and I am afraid this kind of jargon does not yet make any sense to me, unpracticed beginner that I am in the ways of Wikipedia. Thank you for your forbearance, I appreciate your efforts to get this right and I look forward to some encouraging, helpful and instructive advice.MacPraughan (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOC please. Copyright violations are very serious. There's absolutely no question that the article started as a blatant copyright violation, added against a conflict of interest. Again, the solution is a complete rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice, Ronz, though it does not answer my question as to why you deleted the list of publications. This list is a part of the content, is it not? I was focussing on it and I apologise for not understanding the jargon in your edit summary.

Secondly I am seeking to find a suitable solution to your problem about the content. What if the copyright owner, Berzin himself, or whoever wrote his potted bio that was copied here, what if they released the bio into the public domain by signing a license or a permission in such a way as to avoid the very serious violation you have identified? [After all, there is no chance of him ever suing Wikipedia for it!]

Is that not fairly easily done? If it is feasible, please direct me to the license or permission people to get it done, that would be very helpful, wouldn't it? Then, I or someone else could simply edit the text and tie it up with the list of references, deleting whatever cannot be cited from reliable independent sources and trying to make it sound less like an advertisement? It would probably be much shorter. Maybe I could dig up something negative to say about Berzin, a controversy, something that would also demonstrate a NPOV? Thanks for your consideration, I do appreciate your assistance.MacPraughan (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Maybe I could dig up something negative to say about Berzin, a controversy, something that would also demonstrate a NPOV?" That would be grossly inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. Just checking your reaction; what about the real question? MacPraughan (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just checking your reaction I'm sorry, but that's inappropriate as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm learning so much about so many things that are inappropriate. But I guess that's also inappropriate of me to mention it. Yes, I'm sure it must be. Can you enlighten me, then, as to the copyright question I asked, please? Since you didn't say it was inappropriate, I am assuming it must have been appropriate and thus deserving of a meaningful response? MacPraughan (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested in working to rewrite this article, I'm more than happy to help. Anything else is at minimum a distraction. --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That is extremely helpful of you, Ronz, as I have just asked Dr Berzin to grant permission for his bio material to be copied on WP via the WP:DONATETEXT mechanism. I will advise you when this has been done so that you can remove your deletion warning notice and we can get to work improving the article to a better standard. Thanks again, glad to have your cooperation and that we are getting somewhere now. MacPraughan (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how well that resolves the problems, but it's a step in the right direction. Could you please review the relevant policies and report back? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. V. glad to hear we are progressing in right direction. At least the copyright violation is solved, that was the main problem, right? Yes, I've read many relevant policies and can report back that as far as I can see we are on course for an approprate resolution and text reinstatement. Please correct me if I am wrong and if there is a particular policy or policies that you have in mind I shall be happy to attend to it next. MacPraughan (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation addressed?

Ronz and JimRenge, this is to confirm that the subject has made his website biography copyright-free by adding the following sentence at the foot of the page there: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Please refer to the relevant website page, http://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin, to confirm this.

Please can the copyright violation allegation therefore be withdrawn and your deletion warning notice on his WP article removed. I am happy to assist with re-writing the copy in more appropriate/acceptable form. Thanks for your help it is much appreciated. MacPraughan (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear that the next step is to remove the copyvio notice. If you're not going to check, then I'll do so, but you'll have to wait in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, I should not remove the notice. I'll see if I can get attention to the situation by someone who can. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ronz Fine. I have left a message on BLPN with a rq for admin to lift the notice and restore the text. If a violation no longer exists then the issue is resolved and there is no reason to keep the notice. MacPraughan (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alexander_Berzin_.28scholar.29

I've asked for help from an admin that has recently been managing the WP:CP backlog: User_talk:Diannaa#WP:CP_backlogged_problem_-_entry_I.27d_like_to_get_addressed.

I don't think this changes what needs to be done next though: The article needs a complete rewrite from better sources. If none are offered, we should consider WP:AfD, as my review may have been overly optimistic as has been pointed out [5]. If no better sources are offered, and no one attempts to do a complete rewrite, this may be the best next step. I'd prefer stubbing it to minimal information that doesn't violate WP:BLP in any manner, leaving it for expansion when editors find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. For me the sources establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the subject's notablity. Add his 17 published books on specialist academic subjects and his literally thousands of academic articles, commentaries and recorded lectures published in academic journals and suchlike, including on his own website, and it is inappropriate of anyone to suggest, as you appear to do, that by normal Wikipedia standards he is not notable so the article ought to be deleted in its entirety.

Apart from anything else, his Buddhist archive website in itself constitutes visible proof of the towering ahcievements he has made in his field. What is he, if not notable? Yet you, Ronz, say "we should consider WP:AfD". Well, if you think that, go ahead. I wash my hands of it. If that is good Wikipedia, I quit. Yesterday you wrote "If you are interested in working to rewrite this article, I'm more than happy to help". Now that the 'blatant' copyright issue has been removed, you still want to have it deleted. I refrain from further comment, as I suppose, judging by our exchanges yesterday, you will condemn it as 'inappropriate'. MacPraughan (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, you added "This article is largely based on Berzin's biography (https://web.archive.org/web/20160928001656/http://studybuddhism.com/en/who-is-alexander-berzin) at the Study Buddhism website." However, the first version of the wp article was copy-pasted from https://web.archive.org/web/20060328032232/http://www.berzinarchives.com/author/short_biography_alex_berzin.html [6], ([7], author: Dr. Alexander Berzin [8]. The wp article is not based on "Who is Alexander Berzin?" by Matt Lindén [9]. I do not understand why they put the wrong article into the public domain. JimRenge (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, and the documents are not as identical as I originally assumed. I will do some copyright clean-up right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060328032232/http://www.berzinarchives.com/author/short_biography_alex_berzin.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The link you have given above, Diannaa, i.e. http://web.archive.org/web/20060907135937/http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/051898WAH.html, does not appear to have any relevance to this article.

Furthermore it seems the subject has attached the WP copyright release notice to the current version of his bio in error, rather than to the archived one which had been pasted here. I could contact him to correct this but it seems far too late now as the article has completely changed today as a result and all the copied text removed.

Now that the article has been severely attenuated by yourself and 2 editors to a few short sentences based on the citations, and the copyright issue resolved, can the 'multiple issues' notice be removed, as well as the other notice saying it was written by sources too close to the subject and neither verifiable nor neutral? Thanks very much. MacPraughan (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Diannaa made a mistake with the link. We all know exactly where the material was copied from, correct? MacPraughan, you keep making comments to the contrary. Is there a problem? --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have amended by post to include the correct link. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Diannaa. Thanks for your interventions. What else needs doing now, to enable removal of the "Multiple Issues" warning template?

Ronz: with respect, I did not knowingly make any comment to the contrary, I have always accepted that a lot of the previous material had been copied from Berzin's own website bio, so, on what basis do you allege that I "keep making comments to the contrary"?

There is no problem, I am delighted to see your threat of deletion hs been removed. You are all doing a great job now and I have learned a great deal through these exchanges, thanks a lot, much appreciated. MacPraughan (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you know what "allege" means? Your use of that word [10] [11] [12] [13] is part of the problem. Then there are the denials of copyright problems [14][15][16] after their being explicitly pointed out to you. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

All refs are retained on this talk page

I double-checked, and we didn't lose any references in the copyright cleanup. They're all listed above at Talk:Alexander_Berzin_(scholar)#References. Note that I found a link to the full LATimes article: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-01/news/mn-7464_1_dalai-lama --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Works and reviews

I propose to re-add the following books authored by Dr. Alexander Berzin (per WorldCat all of these can be found in many university libraries; translations into other languages exist but should not be listet here):

• (Co-editor with John Bray) Kuleshov, Nikolai S. Russia’s Tibet File. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1996. ISBN 8186470050.
• (Coauthor with His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Translator, and Editor), The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra. Ithaca, Snow Lion, 1997. ISBN 9781559399302.
• Taking the Kalachakra Initiation. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1997. ISBN 1559390840. Reprinted as Introduction to the Kalachakra Initiation. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2010. ISBN 9781559397384.
• Developing Balanced Sensitivity. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1998. ISBN 9781559399937.
• Kalachakra and Other Six-Session Yoga Texts. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1998. ISBN 9781559399968.
• Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship. Ithaca, Snow Lion, 2000. ISBN 9781559399838. Reprinted as Wise Teacher, Wise Student: Tibetan Approaches to a Healthy Relationship. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2012.
• "A Buddhist View of Islam" in Islam and Interfaith Relations: The Gerald Weisfeld Lectures 2006 (Perry Schmidt-Leukel and Lloyd Ridgeon, eds.). London: SCM Press, 2007, 187-203. ISBN 9780334041320.

The following reviews may help to support notability as an author:

• Pettit, John. "Review: Developing Balanced Sensitivity",Tricycle: The Buddhist Review (New York) (winter 1998).
• Marquis, A. (2000). "Book Review: Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship by Alexander Berzin", Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 32 (2), 178.
• Harrison, Anna (2000). Review of Alexander Berzin, "Relating to a Spiritual Teacher", Publishers’ Weekly.
• Brusset, Frederic and Mary Ann. "Book Review: Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship by Alexander Berzin" in Spirituality and Practice: Resources for Spiritual Journeys.
• Tatz, Mark (2002). "Review of Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship. Tibet Journal 27 (3-4), Autumn and Winter 2002.

@Ronz:, please consider to re-add these sources if you agree with me. I want to avoid a revert. :) JimRenge (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, especially the reviews. I was meaning to bring that up myself. How did you find that all of these can be found in many university libraries?

I've added the bibliography as you listed it above to the article. Most are missing author information. While I assume this means that Berzin is the sole author, it's best to verify the fact and add the authorship. --Ronz (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Example, the German version was published by OW Barth (well known publisher) and is also present in several German university libraries. Several sources are incomplete, I would like to know if the Tricycle review was published in their print edition. I am not sure about the reliability of Spirituality and Practice: Resources for Spiritual Journeys. JimRenge (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OUR COLLABORATION

Ronz, how did you originally happen to come across this article?

Moonsell (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Not transparent. But you see the point. Out of five million articles you've put your energies into this one. Something here particularly has pushed your buttons.

Your attacks have all been on aspects of form. You've never discussed content. Yet you've gutted the article of its content. Somehow even the page history has been redacted.

You haven't presented criticisms as a coherent whole. At every step other editors have shown you're wrong and you've ignored them but come up with a completely new one, just as bad as the last. So what's been the unspoken problem with the content?

The rest of us have had a dilemma. On the one hand, "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept." On the other, the pervasive wikilawyering, eschewing accountability, stonewalling and refusing to get every point, disdain for your fellow editors… you've been provoking an edit war from the start. We haven't known how far you would go. You've kidded yourself that you've been doing a bit of weeding. You've doggedly bulldozed where value others have been able to see things of value.

The premonition that's troubled me all along is, what else do you have in mind for those of us who value the availability of Buddhist-related information on WP. It boils down to two things now. You've done the wrecking here so fix it up. And find some way to reassure us about what else you're capable of.

Moonsell (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonsell! I could not agree more. As a beginner editor with particular interest in Buddhism I have been trying my utmost to improve this article to the best of my meagre knowledge.

I have also done my best to be polite in the face of what you call "dogged bulldozing" by Ronz, but have felt personally bullied and intimidated by his disdainful comments on my attempted contributions to the extent that I have become too fearful of his public scorn to respond to his attacks on me (see above).

Berzin's online Archive alone (now named "StudyBuddhism.com") consists of over 9,000 learned and scholarly articles on all aspects of Buddhism painstakingly and professionally translated into no less than 21 languages over several decades which he has made freely available to students of Buddhism all over the world including the Islamic world (Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Urdu, Indonesian). It is supported entirely by voluntary donations from appreciative students.

In Buddhism, he has a reputation second to none in this field of making Buddhist teachings available to anyone who may be interested without the slightest obligation. 21 langages!

Yet for some unknown Ronz has picked on his article with crushing disdain and as you say, he has wrecked it systematically and reduced it to a mere stub - and now seems intent on deleting it altogether because it remains just a stub.

I also wonder about - and question - his true motivation for doing all this. Is this how Wikipedia is meant to be? MacPraughan (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(See User_talk:Moonsell#Your_question_at_Talk:Alexander_Berzin_.28scholar.29 for some background on this discussion.)

My apologies for not addressing every concern above. As there are no diffs or other references to specific comments, edits or discussions, I'm going to address the concerns as a whole:

Let's all remember to refrain from using Wikipedia as a battleground. Let's focus on content and participate in a respectful and considerate way.

If editors would like me to address or refactor specific comments or edits I've made, I'm happy to do so. Please contact me on my talk page.

I'm sorry editors are feeling so defensive about working on this article. Copyright violations are very serious problems, and seeing how they are addressed can be very overwhelming and confusing.

Do the past problems need any further clarification or discussion? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you're too close to your editing to see it objectively. This part of WP is not a den of intellectual property pirates and you can put away the handcuffs. There has been no con, no misuse of WP for ulterior motives.

If we write a lot you don't read it. Now you're demanding things again: diffs on what has inflamed some of us. The details are all here, above. Start at your own talk page, four months ago with a find on "Berzin". But you — where is the simple copying and pasting into this discussion of the bits you say needed recasting? If it's all been so obvious to you, where has there been the easy work in making it obvious to us? The same accountability problem when not prepared to show what those tags applied to.

To me, like MacPraughan, the copyright violation attack looks specious. You've brushed aside considerations of the context (same author here and on the other site is not "plagiarism"), nature of the material (bio - hardly ownership material plus copyright even repudiated by the other site) and status of the match (largely in versions now superseded on the other site and on WP).

"Allege" may well be the best characterisation for the claims you've made. One sign of wikilawyering is obsession with labelling but missing the spirit of their words. Another is not dealing with content.

You've used sourcing in WP:BIO and sourcing in general to wikilawyer (see above, 12 September in great detail), then stonewalled. You made a supercilious display of refusing to get it, saying you wanted extra tags. Since three days later, from the start of your second mention of copyright you've been doing it again, once more refusing to get it.

Wikilawyering over sourcing and the havoc it caused is something I was shocked to first encounter on WP a couple of years ago. It's a facile way to game the system. The goal is to evade accountability for destructive editing. Now it's fast becoming a cancer here. It's such a tool for bamboozling others like Jorgenumata above that one can be seduced by the example of others' appalling behaviour, including even some with privileges, without realising it. I repeat, please reread above, 12 September. Sourcing has to be the slave of content. The other way round is a perversion.

As from the start, what stands out with this copyright stuff has been your zeal to act versus reticence to talk, let alone reconsider. That's not just inflammatory. It's a big problem for WP.

Finally, please check out your first talk about the copyright claim. It was a month and a half *after* you began your mission against this article. Hitting on that as your killer fault doesn't fly. It's just another red herring from the need to stop the train and frankly ask yourself what all this has really been about.

Moonsell (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we disagree on the basic facts of the situation, as well as how to work with other editors in a manner that follows Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. I don't think I can be of further help to you here if you continue in this manner. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Moonsell, you are helping me regain my faith in WP. Of course, the alleged copyright violation and plagiarism here was technical and it was made in all good faith. This is evidenced by the author's unhesitating willingness to repudiate the copyright.

The editor concerned is (or was, at the time) evidently even more of a beginner than me and probably imagined it would be normal practice and common sense to copy Berzin's already prepared, potted bio from his website, with Berzin's permission, and paste it here. He did not see how this could possibly constitute plagiarism or copyright violation. I feel sure that had he known it was technically a transgression of Wikipedia rules he would have re-written it in his own words. Anyone could have done that, including me. Or perhaps, he was aware of the rule, and of the other Wikipedia rule to "ignore the rule" when common sense demands it.

I did not know about the WP phenomenon of "Lawyering" and have read this up now, along with related behaviours of pettifogging, bullying, railroading and so forth. Interesting! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It has enabled me to see Ronz's somewhat patronising interventions here in better perspective. I'm on a learning curve.

I am now studying Ronz's series of attacks on this article in light of your indications and am beginning to see what you mean. Personally, it's the first time I've come up against this kind of attitude here. Everyone else I've discussed such matters with before has been first of all helpful and encouraging but also friendly and sympathetic.

That's what I really like and enjoy about the Wikipedia editing community. I appreciate your comments. It's more helpful and engaging than being suffocated with WP jargon and made to feel foolish and inadequate, while having to witness the systematic destruction of this perfectly good article for no apparent good reason - by a skilled and (presumably) senior WP editor like Ronz. MacPraughan (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

perfectly good article for no apparent good reason You appear to recognize that it was not a "perfectly good article" and you recognize the main the reason, a copyright violation. Are you disputing this? --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, your comment makes no sense to me. I have just asserted that it was a "perfectly good article". You have responded: "You appear to recognize that it was not a "perfectly good article"". What on earth are you talking about?

Then, I have just argued in detail, giving a number of reasons, that in truth there was never any valid copyright violation, but you now assert "you recognize the main the reason, a copyright violation". I have not recognised any such thing; on the contrary, I have been arguing against it; again, what on earth are you talking about?

Next, you ask if I am "disputing this". Disputing what, exactly? That there is a copyright violation, or that there is not a copyright violation? It makes no sense. Kindly elucidate as you are beginning to confuse me.

I appreciate your comment and your desire to be clear and am with you on this. Thanks in advance for explaining better what you want to say so I can respond accordingly and my sincere apologies for not being able to understand your drift which I am sure is logical at some level. MacPraughan (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So you deny there was a copyright violation?! You wrote, The editor concerned is (or was, at the time) evidently even more of a beginner than me and probably imagined it would be normal practice and common sense to copy Berzin's already prepared, potted bio from his website, with Berzin's permission, and paste it here. That's a description of a copyright violation. The material was an exact copy of copyrighted material, which you yourself admit. What am I missing? --Ronz (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, thank you for asking me to explain to you in the context of this article ‘what you are missing’. I am glad you invite constructive criticism (though you side-stepped all my questions). I’m happy to oblige.

In general, I’d say you’re missing the charitable, flexible, open-minded spirit of Wikipedia; plus a sense of humour, a sense of fairness and a sense of proportion.

In particular, you’re missing the ability to grasp what others write about the content of this article and respond accordingly. Latest example: I made it very clear above that the author had given permission to the editor to replicate his prepared biography in the contents of this article. Normally, that constitutes renunciation of copyright. But, while side-stepping all my questions, you choose to understand it, and even re-quote it, as “the definition of copyright violation”. ???

Last week, Moonsell asked why you picked on this insignificant article, out of five million others, but you side-stepped his question. I am inviting you again to be transparent about this.

To my knowledge there are three groups holding grudges against what Berzin represents who would probably like to bulldoze the contents of this article: evangelical Christian missionaries who oppose the spread of Buddhism, Buddhist cults like the NKT who are dogmatically opposed to Berzin's non-sectarianism and Shugden worshippers. Are you one of them?

MacPraughan (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You are ignoring the context completely - the copyright violation. I'm afraid that I cannot see any further reason to engage in this discussion as it appears completely unrelated to improving this encyclopedia in any manner, unrelated to the realities of the article content, and far from anything that looks like an attempt at improving "our collaboration". --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Suppose this was about a notable popstar called "Prince". I'm told there was one but I don't believe it. WP:BIO says you don't need sources to show he is notable. (It says even more about academics.) I say to provide them would risk making WP a laughing stock and trivialise the site to informed readers.

This article never fitted your mold. The gulf between you and fellow editors has been enormous. This guy is not just an entertainer.

With such a gulf, reckless editing has been unwise. The first question to ask yourself was, "Am I the right person to be taking this project on?" As a classical musicologist I could destroy the Prince article.

The second question is, "Does the editing I have in mind need resources I don't have?" Time to communicate — read me above about it preventing edit wars. If I have too many projects going, I don't have this resource.

Time to ponder is another. If others are putting lots of work into trying to get their point across, I can't just glance at it and trot off instant trite retorts.

Patience is another. I was missing it when I took a break from this. But without patience I didn't make any change, let alone one I knew confronted consensus.

I don't accept that this article was a copyright violation. It hasn't been shown to me. An editor with a track record of misleading others, even repeatedly about guidelines and policies says evidence was there once but he also has a track record of not being prepared to justify claims.

Moonsell (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Came for the bio, stayed for the controversy. I still don't understand why there's no external link to studybuddhism. Could someone explain? (I was about to add it but decided to check talk first because there must be a reason ...) Aleph1 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Aleph1. Maybe Ronz can explain. He's already deleted a good two thirds of the article on one excuse or another. He's the expert. But he sidesteps questions, ignores responses, keeps on repeating himself and now no longer wishes to 'engage'. However he continues to find reasons to revert anything that anyone adds as 'it's not about the person', it's only about his work. So good luck. I have less frustrating (and more instructive) projects to focus on at the moment. MacPraughan (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOC please. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

External links to studybuddhism

I still don't understand why there's no external link to studybuddhism. Could someone explain?[17]. There were two, but no External links section. I've added it with a link to Berzin's profile there. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Aleph1 (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It really must be Christmas. MacPraughan (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Notice about Sources being too close to subject

In July 2016 the warning notice about sources being too close to the subject was added. Since then, Ronz has deleted much of the content from the article. Assuming that the article has been sufficiently purged to Ronz's and everyone's satisfaction, I assume the warning notice about sources can now be removed forthwith, barring any objections. MacPraughan (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please WP:FOC and not misrepresent the situation? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not intentionally misrepresent anything, neither am I aware of what you are referring to. No matter. Let me try again. Focussing on content, I do not see any remaining content in this article that justifies keeping the warning template. Ronz, would you agree? MacPraughan (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Let's look over the seven references currently in the article:

The first, the LATimes article, briefly mentions Berzin in passing.

The second two are self-published listings of advisory boards for the two organizations. They are not independent sources.

The last four are reviews of items in the Bibliography section. They were added because they "may be helpful to verify notability as an author)" [18]

So currently we're using one independent source and two self-published sources, plus four reviews tacked onto the article to help establish notability. Because I'm not questioning his notability, I think best thing we could do for the article at this point is find more independent sources, hence the notice. --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That is very helpful to understand the situation, Ronz. Thank you for your critique which, to be honest, I find somewhat confusing. Focussing on Content, my question would be, how can it be said that the various professional reviews of Berzin's works by independent authors in reliable publications, which verify his status, authenticity and achievements and which enhance everything that is said about his career and so forth, be dismissed as 'too close to the author' (if that is what you are doing)?

As regards the LATimes reference, are you saying that it is not to be considered as authentic, verifiable, independent or reliable, and can be thus dismissed just because of its brevity? What is the minimum length of a reference for it to be considered acceptable, and where is that dealt with in the guidelines, please? Furthermore, it escapes me, what relevance the brevity or otherwise of this reference has to our discussion about the template saying that the sources are too close to the author.

As for the two entirely separate and independent organisations who have invited him onto their advisory boards (in itself a recognition of his status, achievements, etc), how do they thus cease to be independent organisations, but self-published? This seems like a Catch-22 situation. If he is not honoured, there is nothing to say, but if he is honoured then it becomes self-published, not independent and should be dismissed as too close to the source. This seems like rather convoluted and negative logic to me. I hope I follow your reasoning, and apologise if I have misunderstood.

With all due respect I would like to understand more about how these WP criteria work and am therefore asking these questions sinerely in order to learn more from you. Many thanks, indeed. MacPraughan (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear points and questions.

Re the reviews: ...be dismissed as 'too close to the author' (if that is what you are doing)? No, that's not what I'm doing. They currently aren't being used to verify any content on the subjects you discuss. I haven't found online access to any of them, so I cannot comment on their content, much less use them to verify anything.

Re LATimes: ...are you saying that it is not to be... and can be thus dismissed... No, that's not what I'm doing. It's the best reference we currently are using, but doesn't say much about him. This has nothing to do with sources being too close to the subject. It's the one independent and reliable source currently being used to verify content. Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Re Advisory board positions: These references fall squarely into WP:BLPSPS. They are too close to the source by definition. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What about this, he seems to have been appointed as teacher on the renowned Tricycle site: https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/introduction-buddhism-dr-alexander-berzin-2/

Please let me know if this would be worthy of being posted as a neutral source, and if so how best to present it. Thanks. MacPraughan (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It's another in-world source. While the quality of the publication is very high, the specific article says little about Berzin. It's an extremely brief introduction of Berzin and his archives, four videos by Berzin, and an interview. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a fine line between destructive editing and vandalism. Vandals don't obfuscate. They show us how open the systen is while destructive editors show us how trusting it is.

An editor without a personal agenda could not do what you do or write like this, Ronz.

Moonsell (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC); edited Moonsell (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the attacks. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your concerns are, the discussions here aren't making any progress to policy-based proposals to change the article content in any manner. Take a look over WP:DR, and find new approach from the suggestions there. --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I'm wasting my time asking you once more to remove the latest of your inflammatory tags or at least justify it.

Moonsell (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Take a look over WP:DR, and find new approach from the suggestions there. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is a stub with only primary information. More secondary sources are required to expand the article, but I don't see any problem with the current content and the sources that support the content. Sources quoted are sufficient for this basic information per WP:Primary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions

There are two more overarching questions here that are even more important than the details above. They involve how much censorship we tolerate on WP and what sort.

Ronz or an anonymous colleague somehow redacted the bulk of the page history of this article. Some years ago an administrator told me such a thing was not possible on WP for even one page, that there was not even a mechanism for it. Ronz, it must have occurred to you that this would be an issue.

The questions are:

a) How was it achieved? and

b) Why?

Moonsell (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe this has all been discussed. This article started as a copyright violation. We need independent sources rather than his own self-published profile. --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Moonsell, try looking for secondary, independent sources about Berzin on Google News, Google Scholar or Google Books. Then start from there. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new items for bibliography

I have been researching Dr Berzin’ bibliography and came up with the following items. Does anyone have any objection to adding them?

"Buddhist-Muslim Doctrinal Relations: Past, Presenting Future” in Buddhist Attitudes to Other Religions (Perry Schmidt-Leukel, ed.). St. Ottilien, Germany, EOS Editions of St. Ottlilien, 2008, 212-236. ISBN 9783830673514.

“Historical Survey of the Buddhist and Muslim Worlds’ Knowledge of Each Other’ Customs and Teachings” in The Muslim World: A Special Issue on Islam and Buddhism (Hartford, Connecticut) , vol. 100, Nrs. 2 and 3, April/July 2010, 187-203. ISSN 00274909.

“The Sources of Happiness According to Buddhism” in Glück (Andre Holenstein, Ruth Meyer Schweizer, Pasqualina Perrig-Chiello, Peter Rusterholz, Christian von Zimmermann, Andreas Wagner, Sara Margarita Zwahlen, eds.). Bern, Stuttgart, Wien, Haupt Verlag, 2011, 41-52. ISBN 9783258076898.

(Editor) Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey. An Anthology of Well-Spoken Advice. Dharmsala, India, Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, 1984, reprint 2001. ISBN-10:8186470298, ISBN-13:9788186470299.

MacPraughan (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not extremely familiar with the general consensus on what to include in bibliographies. Major works should definitely be included. Beyond that it gets rather subjective, and bibliographies are routinely trimmed so the article doesn't look like a resume or similar. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The last two look like primary sources to me, but the first two should be fine. If you want more feedback, you need to provide us urls.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

After having looked up the book Glück on Google Books, I think it is okay to use. It looks secondary to me.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham, with your kind approval I have now added "Glück" to the list. Do you consider the other titles I gave to be primary? It's hard for me to tell the difference... MacPraughan (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're trying to apply "primary" vs "secondary" to bibliographies. These aren't sources, rather just published works. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, i see. I thought we were looking for sources to improve the article. It seems to me that this should be priority, rather than adding a bibliography.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Article in Tricycle as a source?

I also found this article, does anyone have any objection to drawing on the info published here in the first para, to add to the article? Tricycle is a major Buddhist publication in the U.S.:

"After receiving his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1972, Dr. Berzin spent the next 29 years in India studying and translating for Tibetan Buddhist lamas from all four traditions, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his tutors. Berzin returned to the West in 1998 with a “treasure trove” of rare teachings that he wanted to share with the world. To do that, 15 years ago he launched a website called the Berzin Archives, a resource free to the public. Since then, Berzin’s project—now called Study Buddhism—has grown to include thousands of articles and audio and video materials translated into 21 languages."

From: https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/introduction-buddhism-dr-alexander-berzin-2/

Thanks for considering and advising.

MacPraughan (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The presentation and content suggests that the quote is just a summary of his website which they link at the start, apparently as a reference for that material.

Even if that weren't the case, the article isn't about him, but instead is a presentation for the four videos. What would we use it to verify? --Ronz (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a primary source, and should only be used for very basic information such as age, date of birth, etc., per WP:PRIMARY. Apart from that, primary sources can be used in articles sometimes with inline attribution of information, but in biographies of living people that is not recommended.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read up on sources and verifiability and found it helpful. Under the latter, I found the following statement and wonder how, if at all, it is relevant to this question, can you clarify please? "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Thanks again, MacPraughan (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's from WP:SPS, allowing us to consider such sources for use. I'm not sure how it would apply here. Do you have such a source? --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to be funny here, but does the above ruling - exclusion of any details or information published in an independent and reliable journal like Tricycle because it can be theoretically traced back and compared with similar information published on the subject's website - mean that all the details and information published on the subject's website (except DOB, age, etc) are to be automatically excluded from WP, no matter where else they might be published? If this is the case, and the website publishes a long and detail biography then it would seem impossible to build much of an article about anyone with a detailed biography on their website! Or have I misunderstood? MacPraughan (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Tricycle: The Buddhist Review is a print magazine of The Tricycle Foundation. "The mission of The Tricycle Foundation is to create forums for exploring contemporary and historic Buddhist activity, examine the impact of its new context in the democratic traditions of the West, and introduce fresh views and attainable methods for enlightened living to the culture at large." I think the magazine is a potentially reliable, biased source that should be used with caution. Peer-reviewed academic journals and books will generally be preferred. Trike daily is a website/blog of The Tricycle Foundation which should not be confused with the print magazine. JimRenge (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)